Gabriel Bayle

“It is possible to support science and hold it accountable at the same time.” H. Holden Thorp, Editor-in-chief, Science journals

In the last week, Science has published commentary condemning and supporting the Restoring Gold Standard Science executive order from the Trump administration.

In a #ScienceEditorial, Editor-in-Chief H. Holden Thorp examines the circumstances that led to this order. scim.ag/4koPKxH

As always, a great time at #ASFEE! I was happy to discuss my work on distributional preferences, as well as our current project with M.C. Villeval and I. Vallanzasca.

It wouldn't be ASFEE without the French and Italian songs, the great people and research!

See you in Lille!

It was an interesting game to think about, thanks for the exercise!

For P2, the dominant strategy if he is B, is A (100% win). But if he is C or D, I think it is to randomize between A or B (50% win), because due to the dominant strategy of P1, he cannot update his beliefs based on the fact that P1 is playing B.

But honestly, I'm not quite sure about this.

As in the second case it does not change his chance of winning, I would argue that the dominant strategy for P1 is to play B because he is both minimizing losing chance and revealing less information.

But if P1 has B, due to the first part, playing C or D would reveal he has B, so he would have 50% chance of winning in first guess and would be sure to lose if he missed.

If he has B and guesses B, then he has 0% of winning by first guess and 50% winning with P2's guess.

I would say that the dominant strategy for P1 is to guess B if he is A because he has 1/3 of winning in first guess while if the other was really B and P1 guessed something else, he has 100% chance of losing in second guess, so what minimizes losing chance is guessing B.

Good question, I don't know much about this type of games. I would intuitively say no and that there would be Bayesian eqs.

If we assume players are fully rational, then :

Sometimes the simplest reasoning are the most effective!

Do you have another reasoning process in mind? @adrien-fabre.bsky.social

Probably it would be interesting to also think about the fact that he did not choose C or D so, if he is not level 0, he preferred to give me information to try to trick me than not and forcing me to randomly play A or B.

So I think I would answer B. Both because I believe they are the largest part of the distribution and they are the only sophistication level that can be tricked.

And finally, I would simplify by assuming that anyone being able to think about the "double trick" (belief about belief and so on) is trapped as me in this binary loop.

For instance I suppose there are not so many level 0, people not understanding or who are not caring about the outcome (let's quite randomly say 20%), 50% thinking about what I could do so trying to trick me (here they would be B)

Clearly not trivial I would say. That's difficult to assume a level (k-1) to which I could find the best response because there is no reason to believe the other is a odd or even level of thinking. So I would think about the best response to the distribution of levels in the population.

he could have anticipated my belief that I see this level0+ thinking and then be Player B. And so on with beliefs about beliefs about beliefs...
So it's a level k thinking issue.

If I unterstood correctly the rules, either he chose B because he is a random level thinker, or because he anticipated that I believe that if he chose B, I would think the only remaining possibility for him is to be A.
But if he is more sophisticated...

Another study showing the huge uptake, and very favorable evaluations, of preregistration (this time in experimental economics). This is by now a very established result. Mainly the older generation who is negative about is. www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10... 1/3

🚨PhD position in Experimental and Behavioral Economics at GATE Lyon 🚨

The candidate will be co-supervised by myself and a colleague at GATE. If you know any strong candidates (or if you're one!), feel free to reach out.

Deadline: May 15, 2025

Happy to answer questions! Full call in link below.

Research Assistant ERC REALLYCREDIBLE Clément de Chaisemartin is looking for research assistants, for 12 months contracts, starting in June/July or early September 2025.

Please RT: I am hiring RAs, for 12-month contracts, starting in June/July or early September 2025. Apply if you’re interested in working on some fun and useful econometrics projects!

#EconSky

euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs/331499

Econometrica just announced a new discussion board where any member of the Econometric Society can submit a short comment on a paper.

I finally have a publication date for my new Experimental Economics textbook: December 12. Equally as important, I am proud to have negotiated a low price for the book: $38.10...for a nearly 800 page book!
You can find the book here: www.amazon.com/Experimental...

Thanks for the discovery! It's all I've listened to for the two last days while working

Been waiting on this one since your keynote in Lyon like two (three?) years ago!

We are beginning our 2025 Replication Games season! We had 29 events last year, with 1300 participants.

We kick off our season with replication games at the University of Minnesota. About 45 participants. The local organizer is @syeducation.bsky.social, and Derek Mikola is running the show.

I did not know about the fact that registrations were made public after a 4-year embargo on OSF. That's great regarding the drawer effect issue.

I tried to list journals accepting econ RR submissions (thx OSF and R. Espinosa):

Journal of Behav.Exp.Econ.,
Rev. of Finance,
JPE: Micro,
Energy Econ.,
JESA (but only for replications)
J. of Dev. Econ.,
Oxford Open Econ.,
Nature,
NHB,
PLOS ONE,
Decision,
Scientific Reports.

Do you know any other?

As always, very interesting and useful to read your blog.

There have been people less than helpful in my journey here. I wanted to acknowledge those too, bc I know I am not unique in this experience. No thank you to the physics study assoc that made me sing songs about how women couldn't study physics without sleeping with the professor, the day I stepped into university life. No thank you to the 5th year physics student that decided to assign me a stripper name within the first minute of meeting me in the physics coffee corner in my first year. No thank you to the technician that was responsible for onboarding me on the use of the cluster in my third year who raised his eyebrows and asked me if that meant I was some sort of computer girl. No thank you to the senior researcher that sent me utterly inappropriate texts after a conference, then proceeded to apologise months later by telling me they had not been meant for me anyway so no hard feelings remain hopefully And no thank you to him for attending every conference I've been to since. No thank you to the people who told me that it was surprising that I was doing a PhD since I was a girl. No thank you to the man who mistook me for a coffee lady at a conference, and after having to correct him two times that I did not work there, responded with you should consider it. No thank you to the researcher that asked me what I was wearing underneath my outfit during a conference. No thank you to the physicist who declared to a room full of other physicists that biologists don't know how to design an experiment. No thank you to the people who have called me scary instead of strong and intimidating instead of intelligent. And finally, no thank you to the exec board of the TU Delft, whose knee-jerk reaction to being held up a mirror about the social safety at the university, was to sue the party holding up the mirror instead of looking at the problems they highlighted. ... You have made me feel like I do not belong in science & I cannot forgive you for that.

A friend included this anti-acknowledgement section on her PhD thesis. She also added the proposition: “Systematic bullying and undermining of girls and women in STEM starts early on and is the reason why they do not stay in science and related fields.”
Absurd we still need to go through this
🧪👩‍🔬

@yujiangs.bsky.social FYI

What it means to be a successful male academic Prioritizing family life has earned me respect in my field — and my research has improved, too, says Dritjon Gruda.

Here is another in Nature "Career column". Seems to be a masterpiece...

www.nature.com/articles/d41...